Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Kevin Liu]

yea that makes sense, thanks for explaining.

btw it would be great to include the iceberg-rest-fixture fixes in the
1.11.x patch release, so we can re-enable publishing the docker image.
Here's the first PR https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214

On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 12:52 PM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any of the fixes being patched to 1.10.3 should be patched to 1.11.1 but
> it's not necessary that all patches applying to 1.11 also apply to 1.10.3
> because maybe the feature wasn't there in 1.10 (I think there was one fix
> for scan planning that's in this category) or if it's not a critical
> correctness issue fix I would just recommend only patching it in 1.11 since
> we probably don't want the maintenance burden of backporting those kinds of
> fixes that far back.
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh Jahagirdar
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 12:25 PM Kevin Liu  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for addressing that fix, Matt! The PR is still open for review,
>> ptal.
>>
>> I noticed that some PRs are tagged under the 1.10.3 milestone [1], while
>> others are tagged under 1.11.1 [2]. Since a PR can only be assigned to a
>> single milestone, I think we’ll need to backport all of those PRs to both
>> 1.10.x and 1.11.x.
>> Is that right?
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/65
>> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 8:16 AM Matt Butrovich 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> After several rounds of helpful revision, this PR
>>>  to fix manifest delete
>>> file size after table rewrite is green and ready for another pass. I
>>> believe this would be a backport candidate for both 1.10.x and 1.11.x.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:35 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I also went ahead and added this PR
  to the 1.10.3 milestone
 (and of course also applies to 1.11.1), I do think this is an important
 correctness fix for default value handling and evaluation against parquet
 metrics. The 1.11.x branch was created last week.

 Thanks,
 Amogh Jahagirdar

 On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:36 AM Manu Zhang 
 wrote:

> +1 for the patch releases but have we created branch 1.11.x yet?
>
> Regards,
> Manu
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 1:43 PM Tanmay Rauth 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for the patch releases.
>>
>> Thanks Amogh!
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:24 AM Prashant Singh <
>> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for driving this Amogh !
>>> +1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the
>>> patch releases
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Prashant
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
  and I also added
 this PR  from Manu
 for addressing preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It 
 looks
 close, and I just had some final comments on it. I think it's 
 appropriate
 to include for a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered 
 simply
 producing incorrect V3 metadata.

 Thanks,
 Amogh Jahagirdar

 On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve 
 wrote:

> Thanks Amogh.
>
> This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the
> 1.10.2 release.
>  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian <
> neeleshssal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for patch releases.
> > Thanks Amogh
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the fix!
> >>
> >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
> >>
> >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture
> docker image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 
> release. I
> have a PR for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Kevin Liu
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao <
> huaxin.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
> >>>
> >>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3
> correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we
> should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this 
> helps the
> customers still on 1.10.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Huaxin
> >>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Amogh Jahagirdar]

Any of the fixes being patched to 1.10.3 should be patched to 1.11.1 but
it's not necessary that all patches applying to 1.11 also apply to 1.10.3
because maybe the feature wasn't there in 1.10 (I think there was one fix
for scan planning that's in this category) or if it's not a critical
correctness issue fix I would just recommend only patching it in 1.11 since
we probably don't want the maintenance burden of backporting those kinds of
fixes that far back.

Thanks,
Amogh Jahagirdar

On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 12:25 PM Kevin Liu  wrote:

> Thanks for addressing that fix, Matt! The PR is still open for review,
> ptal.
>
> I noticed that some PRs are tagged under the 1.10.3 milestone [1], while
> others are tagged under 1.11.1 [2]. Since a PR can only be assigned to a
> single milestone, I think we’ll need to backport all of those PRs to both
> 1.10.x and 1.11.x.
> Is that right?
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/65
> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 8:16 AM Matt Butrovich 
> wrote:
>
>> After several rounds of helpful revision, this PR
>>  to fix manifest delete
>> file size after table rewrite is green and ready for another pass. I
>> believe this would be a backport candidate for both 1.10.x and 1.11.x.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:35 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I also went ahead and added this PR
>>>  to the 1.10.3 milestone
>>> (and of course also applies to 1.11.1), I do think this is an important
>>> correctness fix for default value handling and evaluation against parquet
>>> metrics. The 1.11.x branch was created last week.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:36 AM Manu Zhang 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 for the patch releases but have we created branch 1.11.x yet?

 Regards,
 Manu

 On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 1:43 PM Tanmay Rauth 
 wrote:

> +1 for the patch releases.
>
> Thanks Amogh!
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:24 AM Prashant Singh <
> prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for driving this Amogh !
>> +1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the
>> patch releases
>>
>> Best,
>> Prashant
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
>>>  and I also added
>>> this PR  from Manu
>>> for addressing preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It 
>>> looks
>>> close, and I just had some final comments on it. I think it's 
>>> appropriate
>>> to include for a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered 
>>> simply
>>> producing incorrect V3 metadata.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks Amogh.

 This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the
 1.10.2 release.
  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3

 On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian <
 neeleshssal...@gmail.com> wrote:
 >
 > +1 for patch releases.
 > Thanks Amogh
 >
 > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> Thanks for the fix!
 >>
 >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
 >>
 >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture
 docker image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. 
 I
 have a PR for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
 >>
 >>
 >> Best,
 >> Kevin Liu
 >>
 >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao <
 huaxin.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
 >>>
 >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
 >>>
 >>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3
 correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we
 should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps 
 the
 customers still on 1.10.
 >>>
 >>> Thanks,
 >>>
 >>> Huaxin
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu 
 wrote:
 
  +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
 
 
  Thanks
  Aihua
 
  On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks 
 wrote:
 
  
  +1
 
  I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be
 easy to release and hel

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Kevin Liu]

Thanks for addressing that fix, Matt! The PR is still open for review,
ptal.

I noticed that some PRs are tagged under the 1.10.3 milestone [1], while
others are tagged under 1.11.1 [2]. Since a PR can only be assigned to a
single milestone, I think we’ll need to backport all of those PRs to both
1.10.x and 1.11.x.
Is that right?


[1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/65
[2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63



On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 8:16 AM Matt Butrovich 
wrote:

> After several rounds of helpful revision, this PR
>  to fix manifest delete
> file size after table rewrite is green and ready for another pass. I
> believe this would be a backport candidate for both 1.10.x and 1.11.x.
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:35 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I also went ahead and added this PR
>>  to the 1.10.3 milestone
>> (and of course also applies to 1.11.1), I do think this is an important
>> correctness fix for default value handling and evaluation against parquet
>> metrics. The 1.11.x branch was created last week.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:36 AM Manu Zhang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for the patch releases but have we created branch 1.11.x yet?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Manu
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 1:43 PM Tanmay Rauth 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 for the patch releases.

 Thanks Amogh!

 On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:24 AM Prashant Singh <
 prashant010...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for driving this Amogh !
> +1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the
> patch releases
>
> Best,
> Prashant
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
>>  and I also added
>> this PR  from Manu for
>> addressing preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It looks
>> close, and I just had some final comments on it. I think it's appropriate
>> to include for a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered 
>> simply
>> producing incorrect V3 metadata.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Amogh.
>>>
>>> This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the
>>> 1.10.2 release.
>>>  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian <
>>> neeleshssal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1 for patch releases.
>>> > Thanks Amogh
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the fix!
>>> >>
>>> >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
>>> >>
>>> >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture
>>> docker image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I
>>> have a PR for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Best,
>>> >> Kevin Liu
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3
>>> correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we
>>> should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps 
>>> the
>>> customers still on 1.10.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Huaxin
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Thanks
>>>  Aihua
>>> 
>>>  On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  +1
>>> 
>>>  I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be
>>> easy to release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
>>> 
>>>  -Dan
>>> 
>>>  On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1. Thanks Amogh!
>>> >
>>> > Yufei
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu <
>>> stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
>>> >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <
>>> 2am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Matt Butrovich]

After several rounds of helpful revision, this PR
 to fix manifest delete file
size after table rewrite is green and ready for another pass. I believe
this would be a backport candidate for both 1.10.x and 1.11.x.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:35 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I also went ahead and added this PR
>  to the 1.10.3 milestone
> (and of course also applies to 1.11.1), I do think this is an important
> correctness fix for default value handling and evaluation against parquet
> metrics. The 1.11.x branch was created last week.
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh Jahagirdar
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:36 AM Manu Zhang 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for the patch releases but have we created branch 1.11.x yet?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Manu
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 1:43 PM Tanmay Rauth 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for the patch releases.
>>>
>>> Thanks Amogh!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:24 AM Prashant Singh 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks for driving this Amogh !
 +1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the
 patch releases

 Best,
 Prashant

 On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
>  and I also added
> this PR  from Manu for
> addressing preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It looks
> close, and I just had some final comments on it. I think it's appropriate
> to include for a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered simply
> producing incorrect V3 metadata.
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh Jahagirdar
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Amogh.
>>
>> This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the 1.10.2
>> release.
>>  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian <
>> neeleshssal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 for patch releases.
>> > Thanks Amogh
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the fix!
>> >>
>> >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
>> >>
>> >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture
>> docker image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I
>> have a PR for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Kevin Liu
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
>> >>>
>> >>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3
>> correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we
>> should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps 
>> the
>> customers still on 1.10.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Huaxin
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
>> 
>> 
>>  Thanks
>>  Aihua
>> 
>>  On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>  +1
>> 
>>  I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be
>> easy to release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
>> 
>>  -Dan
>> 
>>  On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1. Thanks Amogh!
>> >
>> > Yufei
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
>> >>
>> >> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
>> >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <
>> 2am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hey folks,
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've
>> encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not
>> carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR out.
>> >>>
>> >>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in
>> including in these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases
>> typically cover correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing
>> significant regressions from the previous version.
>> >>>
>> >>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3
>> metadata correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus 

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Amogh Jahagirdar]

I also went ahead and added this PR
 to the 1.10.3 milestone (and
of course also applies to 1.11.1), I do think this is an important
correctness fix for default value handling and evaluation against parquet
metrics. The 1.11.x branch was created last week.

Thanks,
Amogh Jahagirdar

On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:36 AM Manu Zhang  wrote:

> +1 for the patch releases but have we created branch 1.11.x yet?
>
> Regards,
> Manu
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 1:43 PM Tanmay Rauth  wrote:
>
>> +1 for the patch releases.
>>
>> Thanks Amogh!
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:24 AM Prashant Singh 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for driving this Amogh !
>>> +1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the
>>> patch releases
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Prashant
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
  and I also added this
 PR  from Manu for
 addressing preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It looks
 close, and I just had some final comments on it. I think it's appropriate
 to include for a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered simply
 producing incorrect V3 metadata.

 Thanks,
 Amogh Jahagirdar

 On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve  wrote:

> Thanks Amogh.
>
> This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the 1.10.2
> release.
>  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian <
> neeleshssal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for patch releases.
> > Thanks Amogh
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the fix!
> >>
> >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
> >>
> >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker
> image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a 
> PR
> for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Kevin Liu
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
> >>>
> >>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3
> correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we
> should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps the
> customers still on 1.10.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Huaxin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu  wrote:
> 
>  +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
> 
> 
>  Thanks
>  Aihua
> 
>  On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks 
> wrote:
> 
>  
>  +1
> 
>  I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be
> easy to release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
> 
>  -Dan
> 
>  On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu 
> wrote:
> >
> > +1. Thanks Amogh!
> >
> > Yufei
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
> >>
> >> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
> >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <
> 2am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey folks,
> >>>
> >>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've
> encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not
> carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR out.
> >>>
> >>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in
> including in these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases
> typically cover correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing
> significant regressions from the previous version.
> >>>
> >>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3
> metadata correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I
> think since we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we 
> should
> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
> patch version than a minor version upgrade.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Manu Zhang]

+1 for the patch releases but have we created branch 1.11.x yet?

Regards,
Manu

On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 1:43 PM Tanmay Rauth  wrote:

> +1 for the patch releases.
>
> Thanks Amogh!
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:24 AM Prashant Singh 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for driving this Amogh !
>> +1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the patch
>> releases
>>
>> Best,
>> Prashant
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
>>>  and I also added this
>>> PR  from Manu for
>>> addressing preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It looks
>>> close, and I just had some final comments on it. I think it's appropriate
>>> to include for a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered simply
>>> producing incorrect V3 metadata.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve  wrote:
>>>
 Thanks Amogh.

 This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the 1.10.2
 release.
  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3

 On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian 
 wrote:
 >
 > +1 for patch releases.
 > Thanks Amogh
 >
 > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> Thanks for the fix!
 >>
 >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
 >>
 >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker
 image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a PR
 for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
 >>
 >>
 >> Best,
 >> Kevin Liu
 >>
 >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao 
 wrote:
 >>>
 >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
 >>>
 >>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3
 correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we
 should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps the
 customers still on 1.10.
 >>>
 >>> Thanks,
 >>>
 >>> Huaxin
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu  wrote:
 
  +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
 
 
  Thanks
  Aihua
 
  On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks 
 wrote:
 
  
  +1
 
  I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy
 to release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
 
  -Dan
 
  On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu 
 wrote:
 >
 > +1. Thanks Amogh!
 >
 > Yufei
 >
 >
 > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
 >>
 >> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
 >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <
 2am...@gmail.com> wrote:
 >>>
 >>> Hey folks,
 >>>
 >>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've
 encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not
 carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR out.
 >>>
 >>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in
 including in these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases
 typically cover correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing
 significant regressions from the previous version.
 >>>
 >>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3
 metadata correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I
 think since we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
 necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
 argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
 A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should
 ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
 patch version than a minor version upgrade.
 >>>
 >>> Thanks,
 >>> Amogh Jahagirdar

>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Tanmay Rauth]

+1 for the patch releases.

Thanks Amogh!

On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 12:24 AM Prashant Singh 
wrote:

> Thanks for driving this Amogh !
> +1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the patch
> releases
>
> Best,
> Prashant
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
>>  and I also added this PR
>>  from Manu for addressing
>> preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It looks close, and I
>> just had some final comments on it. I think it's appropriate to include for
>> a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered simply producing
>> incorrect V3 metadata.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Amogh.
>>>
>>> This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the 1.10.2
>>> release.
>>>  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1 for patch releases.
>>> > Thanks Amogh
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the fix!
>>> >>
>>> >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
>>> >>
>>> >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker
>>> image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a PR
>>> for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Best,
>>> >> Kevin Liu
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3
>>> correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we
>>> should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps the
>>> customers still on 1.10.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Huaxin
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Thanks
>>>  Aihua
>>> 
>>>  On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  +1
>>> 
>>>  I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy
>>> to release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
>>> 
>>>  -Dan
>>> 
>>>  On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1. Thanks Amogh!
>>> >
>>> > Yufei
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
>>> >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <
>>> 2am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hey folks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've
>>> encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not
>>> carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR out.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including
>>> in these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically
>>> cover correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant
>>> regressions from the previous version.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3
>>> metadata correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I
>>> think since we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
>>> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
>>> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
>>> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should
>>> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
>>> patch version than a minor version upgrade.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Prashant Singh]

Thanks for driving this Amogh !
+1 for including preserving encryption metadata on DV merges to the patch
releases

Best,
Prashant

On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:07 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
>  and I also added this PR
>  from Manu for addressing
> preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It looks close, and I
> just had some final comments on it. I think it's appropriate to include for
> a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered simply producing
> incorrect V3 metadata.
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh Jahagirdar
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Amogh.
>>
>> This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the 1.10.2
>> release.
>>  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 for patch releases.
>> > Thanks Amogh
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the fix!
>> >>
>> >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
>> >>
>> >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker
>> image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a PR
>> for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Kevin Liu
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
>> >>>
>> >>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3
>> correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we
>> should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps the
>> customers still on 1.10.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Huaxin
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu  wrote:
>> 
>>  +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
>> 
>> 
>>  Thanks
>>  Aihua
>> 
>>  On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>  +1
>> 
>>  I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy
>> to release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
>> 
>>  -Dan
>> 
>>  On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
>> >
>> > +1. Thanks Amogh!
>> >
>> > Yufei
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
>> >>
>> >> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
>> >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hey folks,
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've
>> encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not
>> carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR out.
>> >>>
>> >>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including
>> in these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically
>> cover correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant
>> regressions from the previous version.
>> >>>
>> >>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3
>> metadata correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I
>> think since we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
>> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
>> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
>> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should
>> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
>> patch version than a minor version upgrade.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Amogh Jahagirdar]

Thanks folks, I've created a 1.10.3 milestone
 and I also added this PR
 from Manu for addressing
preservation of encryption metadata for DV changes. It looks close, and I
just had some final comments on it. I think it's appropriate to include for
a 1.10.3 release because the issue can be considered simply producing
incorrect V3 metadata.

Thanks,
Amogh Jahagirdar

On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:49 AM Steve  wrote:

> Thanks Amogh.
>
> This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the 1.10.2
> release.
>  +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian 
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for patch releases.
> > Thanks Amogh
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu  wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the fix!
> >>
> >> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
> >>
> >> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker
> image. We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a PR
> for review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Kevin Liu
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
> >>>
> >>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3
> correctness fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we
> should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps the
> customers still on 1.10.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Huaxin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu  wrote:
> 
>  +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
> 
> 
>  Thanks
>  Aihua
> 
>  On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks  wrote:
> 
>  
>  +1
> 
>  I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy to
> release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
> 
>  -Dan
> 
>  On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
> >
> > +1. Thanks Amogh!
> >
> > Yufei
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
> >>
> >> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
> >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey folks,
> >>>
> >>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've
> encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not
> carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR out.
> >>>
> >>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including
> in these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically
> cover correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant
> regressions from the previous version.
> >>>
> >>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3
> metadata correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I
> think since we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should
> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
> patch version than a minor version upgrade.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Steve]

Thanks Amogh.

This is very similar to the row lineage problem patched in the 1.10.2 release.
 +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3

On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:08 AM Neelesh Salian  wrote:
>
> +1 for patch releases.
> Thanks Amogh
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the fix!
>>
>> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
>>
>> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker image. 
>> We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a PR for 
>> review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Kevin Liu
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao  wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
>>>
>>> I reviewed the fix (#16699): it's a contained, well-tested v3 correctness 
>>> fix and a good candidate for both patches. I also agree we should keep 
>>> backporting v3 correctness fixes to 1.10, since this helps the customers 
>>> still on 1.10.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Huaxin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu  wrote:

 +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.


 Thanks
 Aihua

 On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks  wrote:

 
 +1

 I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy to 
 release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.

 -Dan

 On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
>
> +1. Thanks Amogh!
>
> Yufei
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu  wrote:
>>
>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
>>
>> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've encountered 
>>> a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not carry over 
>>> first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR out.
>>>
>>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in 
>>> these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically 
>>> cover correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant 
>>> regressions from the previous version.
>>>
>>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata 
>>> correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think 
>>> since we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not 
>>> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an 
>>> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 
>>> 1.10. A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think 
>>> we should ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them 
>>> to upgrade a patch version than a minor version upgrade.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Amogh Jahagirdar

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Neelesh Salian]

+1 for patch releases.
Thanks Amogh

On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM Kevin Liu  wrote:

> Thanks for the fix!
>
> +1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.
>
> For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker image.
> We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a PR for
> review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214
>
>
> Best,
> Kevin Liu
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao  wrote:
>
>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
>>
>> I reviewed the fix (#16699 ):
>> it's a contained, well-tested v3 correctness fix and a good candidate for
>> both patches. I also agree we should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes
>> to 1.10, since this helps the customers still on 1.10.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Huaxin
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu  wrote:
>>
>>> +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Aihua
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy to
>>> release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
>>>
 +1. Thanks Amogh!

 Yufei


 On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu  wrote:

> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
>
> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've
>> encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not
>> carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR
>>  out.
>>
>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in
>> these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically 
>> cover
>> correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions
>> from the previous version.
>>
>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata
>> correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since
>> we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
>> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
>> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 
>> 1.10.
>> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we 
>> should
>> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade 
>> a
>> patch version than a minor version upgrade.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Kevin Liu]

Thanks for the fix!

+1 for patch release for both 1.10.x line and 1.11.x line.

For 1.11.x, I'd like to fix forward the iceberg-rest-fixture docker image.
We previously disabled it to unblock the 1.11.0 release. I have a PR for
review, https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16214


Best,
Kevin Liu

On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 5:23 PM huaxin gao  wrote:

> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.
>
> I reviewed the fix (#16699 ):
> it's a contained, well-tested v3 correctness fix and a good candidate for
> both patches. I also agree we should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes
> to 1.10, since this helps the customers still on 1.10.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Huaxin
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu  wrote:
>
>> +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Aihua
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> +1
>>
>> I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy to
>> release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
>>
>>> +1. Thanks Amogh!
>>>
>>> Yufei
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu  wrote:
>>>
 +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.

 There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
 https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63




 On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've
> encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not
> carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR
>  out.
>
> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in
> these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically 
> cover
> correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions
> from the previous version.
>
> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata
> correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since
> we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we 
> should
> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
> patch version than a minor version upgrade.
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh Jahagirdar
>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[huaxin gao]

+1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3.

I reviewed the fix (#16699 ):
it's a contained, well-tested v3 correctness fix and a good candidate for
both patches. I also agree we should keep backporting v3 correctness fixes
to 1.10, since this helps the customers still on 1.10.

Thanks,

Huaxin

On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 4:18 PM Aihua Xu  wrote:

> +1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.
>
>
> Thanks
> Aihua
>
> On Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>
> 
> +1
>
> I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy to
> release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:
>
>> +1. Thanks Amogh!
>>
>> Yufei
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
>>>
>>> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey folks,

 I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've encountered
 a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not carry over
 first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR
  out.

 Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in
 these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically cover
 correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions
 from the previous version.

 There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata
 correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since
 we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
 necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
 argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
 A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should
 ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
 patch version than a minor version upgrade.

 Thanks,
 Amogh Jahagirdar

>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Aihua Xu]

+1. Thanks for driving the patch releases.ThanksAihuaOn Jun 6, 2026, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Weeks  wrote:+1I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy to release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.-DanOn Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:+1. Thanks Amogh!YufeiOn Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu  wrote:+1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.There is already a milestone for 1.11.1https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote:Hey folks,I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've encountered a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not carry over first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR out. Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically cover correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions from the previous version. There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10. A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a patch version than a minor version upgrade.Thanks,Amogh Jahagirdar

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Daniel Weeks]

+1

I think if we keep the backports narrow for 1.10, it would be easy to
release and help anyone who hasn't moved forward yet.

-Dan

On Sat, Jun 6, 2026, 12:13 PM Yufei Gu  wrote:

> +1. Thanks Amogh!
>
> Yufei
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu  wrote:
>
>> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
>>
>> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've encountered
>>> a bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not carry over
>>> first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR
>>>  out.
>>>
>>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in
>>> these patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically cover
>>> correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions
>>> from the previous version.
>>>
>>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata
>>> correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since
>>> we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
>>> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
>>> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
>>> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should
>>> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
>>> patch version than a minor version upgrade.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Yufei Gu]

+1. Thanks Amogh!

Yufei


On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu  wrote:

> +1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.
>
> There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've encountered a
>> bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not carry over
>> first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR
>>  out.
>>
>> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in these
>> patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically cover
>> correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions
>> from the previous version.
>>
>> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata
>> correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since
>> we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
>> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
>> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
>> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should
>> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
>> patch version than a minor version upgrade.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Amogh Jahagirdar
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Steven Wu]

+1 for both 1.11.1 and 1.10.3 patch releases.

There is already a milestone for 1.11.1
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/milestone/63




On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 11:10 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've encountered a
> bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not carry over
> first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR
>  out.
>
> Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in these
> patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically cover
> correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions
> from the previous version.
>
> There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata
> correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since
> we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
> necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
> argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
> A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should
> ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
> patch version than a minor version upgrade.
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh Jahagirdar
>

[DISCUSS] 1.11.1 / 1.10.3 patch releases?

[Amogh Jahagirdar]

Hey folks,

I'm kicking this thread off to discuss patch releases. I've encountered a
bug where the Spark rewrite manifests procedure does not carry over
first row IDs correctly. I have a fix PR
 out.

Are there any other fixes folks would be interested in including in these
patch releases? As a general reminder, patch releases typically cover
correctness fixes, security fixes, or addressing significant regressions
from the previous version.

There's a separate question: should we continue patching v3 metadata
correctness fixes in 1.10, or should we just focus on 1.11. I think since
we made the claim that we want to have solid v3 support (not
necessarily all features, but certainly correctness) in 1.10 there's an
argument that we should continue to backport those specific fixes to 1.10.
A significant number of clients out there are on 1.10 and I think we should
ensure correctness for them and it's probably easier for them to upgrade a
patch version than a minor version upgrade.

Thanks,
Amogh Jahagirdar